Kommentar zu Schemot 21:7
וְכִֽי־יִמְכֹּ֥ר אִ֛ישׁ אֶת־בִּתּ֖וֹ לְאָמָ֑ה לֹ֥א תֵצֵ֖א כְּצֵ֥את הָעֲבָדִֽים׃
Wenn jemand seine Tochter verkauft als Magd, so soll sie nicht frei werden wie die männlichen Sklaven; [der Herr soll sie ehelichen].
Rashi on Exodus
וכי ימכר איש את בתו לאמה AND IF A MAN SELL HIS DAUGHTER TO BE A MAIDSERVANT — The text speaks of a minor daughter (under 12 years of age). You might think that he may sell her also although she may have shown signs of incipient puberty and is no longer a minor! You must admit, however, that the à fortiori argument applies: How is it in the case of a woman who was sold at an earlier age (as a minor)? She goes free on showing signs of incipient puberty, as it is said, (v. 11) “then shall she go out free without money”, which law we explain to refer to a woman who has showed such signs during the period of slavery! Is it not the conclusion that she who is of such an age and has not yet been sold shall not be sold at all?! (Arakhin 29b, cf. Mekhilta d'Rabbi Yishmael 21:7:1).
Ask RabbiBookmarkShareCopy
Ramban on Exodus
SHE SHALL NOT GO OUT AS THE MENSERVANTS DO. This means that the Hebrew maidservant does not go out free “in consequence of the loss of a tooth or an eye, as Canaanite slaves do.”66See further, Verses 26-27. Thus is Rashi’s language, and our Rabbis interpreted it likewise.60Mechilta here on the Verse. Indeed it is so, for a Hebrew servant is not called eved67The Hebrew servant may be called eved ivri [as in Verse 2 here: if thou buy an ‘eved ivri’ — a Hebrew servant] but never just eved, which term by itself signifies a Canaanite bondman. Here in Verse 7 where it just says ha’avadim (menservants) it must therefore refer to the Canaanite bondmen. For a similar statement of Ramban see also further Verse 20. without any further qualification.
But I wonder: why does Scripture find it necessary altogether to tell us this [that a Hebrew maidservant does not go out free because of the loss of a tooth or eye, as Canaanite bondmen do]?68For what reason might I have thought that she does go out free, so that Scripture should find it necessary to tell us that such is not the case? Perhaps it is to tell us that we should not argue by applying the method of kal vachomer69See in Seder Bo Note 208. — The kal vachomer in this case would be as follows: A Canaanite bondwoman who does not go out free at the end of six years or in the jubilee year, does go out free because of the loss of any of the chief external organs. It is therefore only logical that a Hebrew maidservant, who does go out free at the end of six years or in the jubilee, should surely go out free because of the loss of any chief external organs. from a Canaanite women, that a Hebrew maidservant goes out free because of the loss of a tooth or eye. This law is stated expressly in the case of a Hebrew woman, but such is also the law for a Hebrew man, who has been compared to her [thus he too does not go out free because of the loss of any of the chief external organs]. The author of the ‘Hilchoth Gedoloth,’70Rabbi Shimon Kairo, who flourished in the second half of the eighth century — when the Gaonic period was at its height. Considered a most authoritative work on Rabbinic law, the ‘Hilchoth Gedoloth’ was a pioneer in the field of Taryag (613) Commandments, for in a preface to this work the author was the first scholar who attempted to define each separate commandment (see my foreword to “The Commandments,” Vol. I pp. viii — ix). wrote, however, that [the verse is not needed to exclude this kal vachomer,69See in Seder Bo Note 208. — The kal vachomer in this case would be as follows: A Canaanite bondwoman who does not go out free at the end of six years or in the jubilee year, does go out free because of the loss of any of the chief external organs. It is therefore only logical that a Hebrew maidservant, who does go out free at the end of six years or in the jubilee, should surely go out free because of the loss of any chief external organs. for even if Scripture had not excluded it, we could not have argued that a Hebrew woman should go out free in consequence of the loss of a tooth or eye], because the going forth to freedom by slaves on account of the loss of a tooth or eye is a penalty [to the master], and you cannot derive a law by logical argument from penalties. The author of the ‘Hilchoth Gedoloth’ thus considered this verse a negative commandment71As opposed to a mere “negation,” where the verse just negates a certain law from being applicable, without constituting a prohibition. In his Book of the Commandments, Maimonides dedicated the eighth principle to the clarification of this distinction between a negation and a prohibition, and without mentioning the name of the author of the ‘Hilchoth Gedoloth,’ differs with him on the interpretation of this verse, which in his opinion merely states that there is no obligation on the part of the master to let her go free where he causes her the loss of one of her organs. [See in my translation, “The Commandments,” Vol. II pp. 390-393.] In his notes to Maimonides’ Book of Commandments, Ramban came to the defense of the ‘Hilchoth Gedoloth.’ wherein G-d warns the master that if he wants to send her out free because of the loss of a tooth or eye, that he transgresses a prohibition; but instead he is to pay her monetary compensation for the tooth or eye, and she shall stay with him up to the time [of six years, or before if she produces signs of puberty], to be designated as the master’s wife [or his son’s]. For it would be a great injustice if, after causing her the loss of a tooth in his anger and blemishing her thereby, he would then send her out of his house, when she had hoped to become his wife. Moreover, many times the monetary compensation for the damage done to the chief external organs, is more than the earnings for her labor if her days as a handmaid have nearly terminated. Therefore Scripture was strict upon the master and made a clear prohibition, so that he should not rob her of the monetary compensation due to her for the loss of any of her chief organs, even if he should want to let her go free on account of them. It may be that sending her to freedom is itself forbidden before the fixed time, for Scripture has obliged the master to support her and that she stay with him, in case she finds favor in his eyes and becomes his wife; just as He warned him with a prohibition that [after he marries her and takes another wife] her food, her raiment, and her conjugal rights shall he not diminish.72Verse 10. In accordance with this opinion [the author of the ‘Hilchoth Gedoloth’] counted the verse, She shall not go out as the menservants do among the three hundred and sixty-five negative commandments.
But I wonder: why does Scripture find it necessary altogether to tell us this [that a Hebrew maidservant does not go out free because of the loss of a tooth or eye, as Canaanite bondmen do]?68For what reason might I have thought that she does go out free, so that Scripture should find it necessary to tell us that such is not the case? Perhaps it is to tell us that we should not argue by applying the method of kal vachomer69See in Seder Bo Note 208. — The kal vachomer in this case would be as follows: A Canaanite bondwoman who does not go out free at the end of six years or in the jubilee year, does go out free because of the loss of any of the chief external organs. It is therefore only logical that a Hebrew maidservant, who does go out free at the end of six years or in the jubilee, should surely go out free because of the loss of any chief external organs. from a Canaanite women, that a Hebrew maidservant goes out free because of the loss of a tooth or eye. This law is stated expressly in the case of a Hebrew woman, but such is also the law for a Hebrew man, who has been compared to her [thus he too does not go out free because of the loss of any of the chief external organs]. The author of the ‘Hilchoth Gedoloth,’70Rabbi Shimon Kairo, who flourished in the second half of the eighth century — when the Gaonic period was at its height. Considered a most authoritative work on Rabbinic law, the ‘Hilchoth Gedoloth’ was a pioneer in the field of Taryag (613) Commandments, for in a preface to this work the author was the first scholar who attempted to define each separate commandment (see my foreword to “The Commandments,” Vol. I pp. viii — ix). wrote, however, that [the verse is not needed to exclude this kal vachomer,69See in Seder Bo Note 208. — The kal vachomer in this case would be as follows: A Canaanite bondwoman who does not go out free at the end of six years or in the jubilee year, does go out free because of the loss of any of the chief external organs. It is therefore only logical that a Hebrew maidservant, who does go out free at the end of six years or in the jubilee, should surely go out free because of the loss of any chief external organs. for even if Scripture had not excluded it, we could not have argued that a Hebrew woman should go out free in consequence of the loss of a tooth or eye], because the going forth to freedom by slaves on account of the loss of a tooth or eye is a penalty [to the master], and you cannot derive a law by logical argument from penalties. The author of the ‘Hilchoth Gedoloth’ thus considered this verse a negative commandment71As opposed to a mere “negation,” where the verse just negates a certain law from being applicable, without constituting a prohibition. In his Book of the Commandments, Maimonides dedicated the eighth principle to the clarification of this distinction between a negation and a prohibition, and without mentioning the name of the author of the ‘Hilchoth Gedoloth,’ differs with him on the interpretation of this verse, which in his opinion merely states that there is no obligation on the part of the master to let her go free where he causes her the loss of one of her organs. [See in my translation, “The Commandments,” Vol. II pp. 390-393.] In his notes to Maimonides’ Book of Commandments, Ramban came to the defense of the ‘Hilchoth Gedoloth.’ wherein G-d warns the master that if he wants to send her out free because of the loss of a tooth or eye, that he transgresses a prohibition; but instead he is to pay her monetary compensation for the tooth or eye, and she shall stay with him up to the time [of six years, or before if she produces signs of puberty], to be designated as the master’s wife [or his son’s]. For it would be a great injustice if, after causing her the loss of a tooth in his anger and blemishing her thereby, he would then send her out of his house, when she had hoped to become his wife. Moreover, many times the monetary compensation for the damage done to the chief external organs, is more than the earnings for her labor if her days as a handmaid have nearly terminated. Therefore Scripture was strict upon the master and made a clear prohibition, so that he should not rob her of the monetary compensation due to her for the loss of any of her chief organs, even if he should want to let her go free on account of them. It may be that sending her to freedom is itself forbidden before the fixed time, for Scripture has obliged the master to support her and that she stay with him, in case she finds favor in his eyes and becomes his wife; just as He warned him with a prohibition that [after he marries her and takes another wife] her food, her raiment, and her conjugal rights shall he not diminish.72Verse 10. In accordance with this opinion [the author of the ‘Hilchoth Gedoloth’] counted the verse, She shall not go out as the menservants do among the three hundred and sixty-five negative commandments.
Ask RabbiBookmarkShareCopy
Sforno on Exodus
לא תצא כצאת העבדים. It is not appropriate for an upstanding member of society to buy a Jewish girl as a servant against her will. Such a “sale” is acceptable only if the girl in question will become the wife of the buyer or his son when reaching puberty. The purchase price will be given to her father as our sages have stipulated in Ketuvot 46.
Ask RabbiBookmarkShareCopy